BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)

Subject: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 09:52 AM

Sometimes I meet interesting people. This last one I met 10 days ago when he showed me how he dissolves clouds. I tell you this story to show how unknown scientific procedures are even among clever members of the general public.

He had called me months ago to tell me he can dissolve clouds. I asked him how he does it (by concentration and wishing them to dissolve) and why he called me (he wants me to witness it so that even a scientist is convinced; "I know it works but I want to prove it to scientists").

I then said I assumed he knew the most simple counter hypothesis. Oh yes, he said, but I also can do it if someone else watches and I can repeat it several times an hour. No, I said, that's not what was in my mind, I did trust his word for the effect, but had he ever watched a cloud and looked what happened to it when he did not want it to dissolve? No, he said, he could make clouds, only dissolve them. No, I said, that's not what I mean but clouds do happen to come and go and perhaps the clouds would go just as quickly without you (or anybody else) watching. As a control I advised him to point out a (for him) dissolvable cloud to his wife and to ask her to watch it while he was not concentrating.

He obviously didn't get it or did not understand the necessity of such a control for whenever he phoned me later he talked about his successes and not about this control even if I did ask him about it. We narrowed the scenario (little white clouds on a fine summer day) and his aim (to show it to a skeptic and perhaps to reclaim later Randi's million). I would do a pre-test whenever he declared the weather being o.k. and we both had time. He came over as a genuinely sincere man and as a quite clever man (he runs his own successful company) in many things related to daily business.

Wet met on two days of the weekend before last weekend when the weather was fine. When I asked him he had already forgotten about the control test I had suggested to him and repeated that not only himself and his wife but many trustworthy individuals had seen him doing it. I said I believed him completely regarding what happens but did not share his theory about it.

He then pointed out a cloud to me and stood there with his arms stretched out a bit so that the inside of his hands were directed towards the sky and visibly concentrated and accompanied his effort by a verbal description (there is already a tiny opening on the upper left side....on so on). After 8 minutes we agreed that the cloud had completely disappeared in the background haze. I told him that I had never watched any cloud for that long and so this was new to me as an experience but that I had believed this to be possible even before watching (there are sometimes films in TV with the clouds in the opposite of slow motion (whatever that is in English) and you see them come and go in seconds.

I then said, point me out another cloud you can dissolve. He did and then I said, now please turn your back to the cloud watch the scenery or do whatever you like but don't look at this cloud. I'm going to watch it. After 7 minutes the remains of that cloud were barely perceptible and I told him look at it that had dissolved completely without his interference. I then said that this of course was not a perfect test, we would need many repetitions and random assignment of dissolvable clouds to a group he concentrates upon or a group that is merely watched. And we would have the assessment ('now it is completely dissolved') made not by a skeptic knowing in which group that particular cloud was.

He then said he could show me how he dissolved some more clouds and I said that was not necessary for me for I already believed that small clouds would dissolve minutes after he set his mind on that endeavour. My only quibble I said was if what happened came merely after his attempt or because of his attempt. I once more said I believed his observation to be correct (that was his anxiety, BTW, that I might think he was deluded and that's why he mentioned the many witnesses) but I just did not believe his explanation (I make them disappear) to be correct as long as there was a very simple counter-explanation.

I could see that a bit of that how-do-I-test-a-hypothesis thinking did reach him but when he left he said he'd call me again on a better day and he'd show me how he can dissolve 6-10 clouds in one hour.

What amazes me is how such an intelligent and likeable man can be so oblivious of a simple test procedure for an idea. What amazes me even more (and that's by far not a single case) is that people when being told what the correct test procedure is and why still do not use it for themselves.

German skeptics recently have tested several dowsers (one of them had an amazing streak of successes and did make it to the first final with Randi, but when one potential source of an information leak was closed he fell back on chance performance). All of them have been filmed for TV (they knew it before) and since performing at chance level in TV can be a kind of embarrassment all of them have been told before exactly what the test procedure would be and have been asked to perform a blind test for themselves before going public. All have either said they had done it successfully or that they did not need a blind test because they knew what they could.

Well, it was a long story you may have liked to read or not, but the 'morals' should be clear: (1)It is a long way from an observation to an interpretation. (2) The 'positive test strategy' (I want it and soon after that it happens) without looking for what happens without me can be misleading (3) It needs a bit of expert knowledge usually not taught in high-school to do the tests that could also convince an initial skeptic.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 10:24 AM

A beautiful dissertation, Wolfgang. Well reasoned and well worded.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 10:43 AM

What type of dowsing?

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 10:56 AM

Water witching and metal witching. Different types of instruments.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 10:56 AM

Wolfgang:

I enjoyed your well written article. I had a similar experience taking a video course with a co-worker, where the video tape was to be stopped and we were to be tested at regular intervals. There was a logical inconsistency at one point which was pretty obvious, but try as I might I could not get it through the thick skull of my co-worker, who was a professional engineer of great experience.

I have learned not to take logic for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 11:00 AM

You're quite correct, Wolfgang, that clouds dissolve anyway, on their own...although it's difficult to say exactly WHEN they will oblige and do that.

I learned the cloud dissolving thing years ago, and was quite intrigued with how it works (or appears to work). My general feeling about it is: I can hasten the dissolving of a given cloud by focusing that intention upon it, specially when I'm reasonably relaxed.

That's my impression. I may be wrong. I may be right.

You have a strong faith that things operate within certain parameters (natural laws), Wolfgang, and ONLY within those, and you will always search for evidence and interpretation of that evidence which supports your established faith. So do I have such a faith, BUT we just have faith in somewhat different areas, that's all.

You have an emtional need to prove your faith is right. That's not unusual. We all have that tendency, I think.

Best wishes,

George

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 11:11 AM

I don't have a faith, Little Hawk, I have hypotheses and I know how to test them. That's something completely different and using the same words for different things doesn't make them the same. A real test of a hypothesis can have the result that a hypothesis was wrong. The other cloud might not have dissolved and I might have had to reconsider. A faith however isn't open to refutation.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 11:14 AM

Call me a skeptic, but....

I do believe that there are things I can't explain, but watching a cloud dissolve isn't among them. I can sit in my office right now and stare at the sky, at the clouds. And, doggone it, one DID just dissolve as I was typing the previous sentence! Of course, it is pretty windy out and the cloud actually merged into a great big gray one.

Also, because I cannot explain something doesn't automatically mean that there is something about it that is beyond the "normal." It only means I can't explain it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 11:20 AM

A faith of any given sort IS a hypothesis, Wolfgang, and it most certainly can be open to refutation. I have had faith in any number of things in my life which was later revised or refuted by EXPERIENCE. I do not agree with your definition of the word "faith". I think you've got it confused with "religious doctrine". Religious doctrine is a specific kind of very narrow faith, and even IT can be refuted or revised in the light of experience....if the person with that faith is moderately flexible in nature.

I am flexible in nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: mack/misophist
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 11:21 AM

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is one of the more persistant falacies.

LH: For centuries it was believed that rotting meat spontaneously generated worms and flies. It took about a thousand years for some one to think of putting meat in a pan with cheese-cloth over the top to test the idea. No worms or flies. Surprise. This is called science and is responsible for most of the good things we have today. It's not religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 12:07 PM

Regarding dowsing for water, does the water have to be flowing? I am skeptical of people who say they can dowse stagnant water.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: GUEST,gnu
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 12:09 PM

Oops. That was me at 12:07PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 12:21 PM

I was working in my shop and straightened two coat hangers, then bent an "L" into them about six inches from one end. They were intended to be temporary anchors for plastic sheeting, and I picked up one in each hand, holding it by the short end of the "L".

Just for grins, I held them so that the long ends were parallel to the ground. As I walked out to the front of the yard, the wires crossed each other. Needless to say, I was surprised, and more so when they uncrossed in another step or two.

I repeated the process with the same result. I did this six times.

Checking the "map" of the yard later, I determined that the wires crossed right over the pipe bringing the water to the house.

Dowsing? Magnetics? I don't know, and I've never been tempted to try it again. It was a spooky experience, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: s&r
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 12:22 PM

Wolfgang - isn't it a bit like Schrodinger's cat - if you attempt to determine the state of the cat you invalidate the test: if you test the cloud dissolver, you interfere with his magic

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 12:23 PM

I've always been totally in favour of science, Mack. Matter of fact, I was the 2nd most scientific kid I ever knew back when I was a young sprat, and probably the most rational/logical of all. It drove the other kids nuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 12:42 PM

LH: I didn't see any posts from you and I missed you. But your unique interpretation of words which seem to fit you but not the dictionary, is coming into play here. And as for believing that you can hasten the 'dissolving' of clouds when you are in a relaxed state, please tell me that was tongue planted firmly in cheek!

That ain't faith, that ain't even a hypothesis. That's nuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 12:52 PM

Not necessarily, robomatic. You would have to try it yourself for a bit and see what happens, that's all, and then see what you think. That's how it works with anything, isn't it?

Consider the possibility that there are simply a few things still out there that science has not YET invented an instrument capable of observing or measuring in a definitive way.

There have always been such things. As science advances, ways are found to confirm what was once considered nonexistent...or was not even considered at all.

If you were from the 1500's and I told you about the radio, the telephone, the airplane, etc...your response would be, "That's nuts." And then you would quite possibly tell the church about it, and I would get tortured and burned.

Believe me, things have improved tremendously. I have faith in the ability of humanity to resolve apparent mysteries and move forward. I believe that faith is well founded.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 01:19 PM

Rap... copper water pipe? I worked as a resident enginner on airport facilities for five years and dowsed a lot of underground services with two pieces of #10 copper wire, bent like your coat hanger, with four and twelve inch legs. It works for copper, ferrous metals, live electrical wires, and flowing water.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 01:49 PM

Frankly, I'm inclined to evaluate Wolfgang's acquaintance a little differently; I think that, in at least a small, low key way, the guy was delusional. His thinking about the cloud thing was blocked off from "sane" thinking processes.
Some years back I took a friend to an emergency room after she fell and struck her head. We got into a conversation with another woman in the waiting room, who apologized because her condition was unpleasant for the rest of us. She appeared to be quite intelligent; she was neat, clean, coherent, fluent, and calm and matter-of-fact about the situation.
Her basic problem was that she had been dead for three days, and she realized that the smell of decay was getting bad. Apart from that, she seemed to be fine.
Now her case does seem a little more clear cut than that of the cloud specialist; where he is concerned, I admit I just have a tenous hypothesis, and I don't expect to have the chance to test it properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 02:02 PM

I don't think that it was copper pipe, since it was from the main to the house across the front yard. Probably galvanized or iron is my guess. As I said, I haven't tried it again. Probably should one of these days.

My mother always said I should dowse because she felt I could do it. Being as I am, I thought she said "drowse in water" and I used to fall asleep while swimming. The lifeguards got tired of me telling them that "My mother told me to!"

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: heric
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 02:04 PM

Not really the same subject, but similar: I just spent the weekend in Vegas for the first time in forever, playing Blackjack, which I really like. But the only thing that matters to me is making the right bet on the odds; what card then comes up interests me almost not at all. (Although there is a resurgence in single deck games, in which case you need to pay attention for other reasons.) Yet, at every table every night, the bulk of the crowd goes on endlessly about what card came up, and how that showed they were right or wrong in their decisions (or "hunches"). It amazes me. And I guess that's why they offer a game with almost fifty percent odds.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 02:31 PM

Gnu,

those tested all claimed they could do it with stagnant water. But I only have introduced that example for their amazing lack of testing themselves. They all were notified in detail how the test would be done and how they could test themselves under the same circumstances to avoid public embarrassment but they still came. I think it should be easy for someone who claims to be able to find stagnant water under a cover if being told that in the test situation he would not know under which cover the water was to do that test at home with his wife or a friend.

s&r, (1) we are some factors ten away from the realm of Schroedinger's cat
(2) he had told me he could do it with all kinds of people watching and some of them he said were initially skeptical
(3) I did not interfere with his 'magic', it worked like it ever did, only it also did work without him. For the cat analogy to be working you must postulate that I (being skeptical) did make the other cloud disappear to get the result I had wished. That's the Conan Doyle argument that nobody is taking serious.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 03:26 PM

Rap... easy enough to look at the entrance. Measure the diameter. You may have to scrape the pipe, carefully, with a knife to determine the type of metal... for instance, lead will appear as black as iron from dirt clinging to the moist surface of the pipe over the years. How old is the house?

I had a building inspection business for about five years and these types of things are of great interest to me.

No, no. Don't run right down to the basement this minute. Just when you happen to have nothing else better to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 03:38 PM

Here's another way of looking at it:

There are two variables: Whether he wants a certain cloud to dissolve (or not) and whether it in fact dissolves (or not).
Therefore there are 4 possibilities:
1. He wants a certain cloud to dissolve, and it dissolves.
2. He wants a certain cloud to dissolve, and it does not dissolve.
3. He does not want a certain cloud to dissolve, and it dissolves.
4. He does not want a certain cloud to dissolve, and it does not dissolve.

You could most easily illustrate this by constructing a 2 x 2 table with appropriate headings (each variable on a different axis) and 4 cells to be filled in with numbers--but I'm not facile enough with HTML to do this here.

He is, in effect, claiming that there are lots of cases in cell 1, but he knows or says nothing about how many cases there are in the other 3 cells. But in order to show a correlation--which is necessary but not sufficient to show cause and effect--you need to have numbers in each of the 4 cells. Reporting 1, 2, or even 3 cells is not sufficient.

I've noticed that even reputable newspapers, when they try to summarize the findings of a scientific study, will often quote some statistics from the study, but fail to give enough numbers to show a correlation. (I assume the numbers are in the study but the reporter failed to realize they were important.) Likewise politicians, lobbyists, editorial writers, writers of letters to the editor--when they try to quote statistics to support an argument, rarely give you all 4 parts of the grid. They'll tell you that X percent of all A is B, but they won't tell you what percent of all non-A is B, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: number 6
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 04:06 PM

Will this work on fog? June is the fog season here along the Fundy coast.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 04:25 PM

May as well have an Alpine or sIx.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 04:48 PM

Of course, the fog, rather, pall, the next morning might be worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 05:26 PM

My ex wife, many years ago was finishing taking a bath. She pulled to plug, and began to put her hand over the drain briefly, then remove it, creating an alternating gurgling sound.

"What are you doing?" I asked her.

"Making the water go down faster," she replied.

I asked her how she knew that would work. (She was a VERY bright person- 3.85 grade average, concert pianist, spoke several languages, edited manuscripts for scholars...etc.)

She said, "well, I have been doing it for years...it just seems to work!"

I asked if she had ever measured a precise amount of water and allowed it to drain with and without her hands assistance.

"Well, no..."
"Then how do you know it makes a difference?"

She thought about it a bit, and soon quit the practice, as SHE saw the point when I explained that the seeming increase of water flow from pressing down would be offset by the stoppage of flow when she covered the drain, and that I'd bet a measurement would show little difference.

We never actually did the experiment, but the point is, that even someone who is able to 'see' the flaw in the hypothesis(after it is pointed out) can be lured into a too-quick conclusion based on what they WISHED to see and using data extraneous to the test (sound etc,.)

It is very easy in experiments such as dowsing to miss some important factors when deciding what actually happened and when and why

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 08:28 PM

You CAN make a soft drink type of water bottle empty quicker - if you swirl the water around so that it gets a 'hole' in the middle and lets the air into the bottle - but that's based on science.

My mother's father could genuinely dowse water 'reliably' - damn freaky ....

'reliably' = people would ask him to do it...

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: GUEST,Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 08:50 PM

Does this guy who can dissolve clouds also claim to be able to make water run downhill?

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: John O'L
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 10:49 PM

For some time now I have believed that if I need something specific for a job around the house or yard I can just go out looking for it, and I will find it.

I've been thinking of making myself a new violin case, suitable for storing my instrument without having to take the shoulder-rest off. (I'm not that lazy, it's just that at present I have to grab every opportunity I can, so I play for short periods sometimes 5 or 6 times a day. I leave the shoulder-rest on and sit it in its case with the lid open. Call me obsessive-compulsive, but I'd rather have it closed.)

I have the wood and the foam rubber, but what I would like is some baize to line the padding, so now (yes, right now) I am going out looking for some baize. I'm thinking green, but the maroon stuff will do.

I think that's sufficiently specific and obscure to raise eyebrows, but at the same time I am aware that finding it or not finding it will prove nothing.
Clouds? They just come & go.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 11:00 PM

I think Wolfgang dissolved that cloud when that other guy wasn't looking and just pretended that the cloud dissolved by itself. Just so he could pretend he was right and the other guy was wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 11:16 PM

The story reminds me of the Messiah teaching Don Shimoda how to dissolve clouds in Richard Bach's book, Illusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: John O'L
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 12:13 AM

Well I walked the dog up to the highway and then down to the old aerodrome but found nothing, so I took a drive out to the old town dump, which has been closed to the public for about thirty years, but is still used for demolition material. Not the sort of place you could reasonably expect to find baize, but it has been the scene of some of my greatest successes so I thought I'd give it a go.

What I found there was not baize, it's too plush. Billiard balls would not roll well on that stuff. It's soft and plyable, and get this: It's purple! It's perfect for what I want.

So what can we learn from this?
I went out looking for baize and didn't find it.
OR, I went out looking for something to line my violin case and found something better than baize. I was looking for the wrong thing, and found the right thing.

Wolfgang, I trust you will not be impressed, and I don't blame you, but my perception of my place in the cosmos has not been shaken.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: John O'L
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 12:27 AM

I can't go on. I have to 'fess up.

The material I found - I won't be using it, I didn't even bring it home. When I picked it up I saw it had been lying on top of a couple of filthy old pairs of underpants. I dropped it where it was, came home and washed my hands.

I concede.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: JudyB
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 09:49 AM

Years ago a friend showed me he could dissolve clouds, and I was suitably impressed. Must admit, however, that when I considered learning to do it myself, my first thought was not that I needed to meditate on channeling my psychic energy but that I needed to figure out how to pick the right clouds.

That said, I do believe things in the universe are connected in ways that aren't immediately obvious, and I'm not ready to swear that if there are two identical clouds (first improbability) and I focus on one, it won't dissolve faster than the other (sun reflecting off my nose at my chosen cloud? who knows?).

I do know that I'm not likely to do the double-blind type study necessary to prove the light-reflected-off-nose theory unless someone wants to give me a big grant!

And if one person staring for 5 minutes can dissolve one small cloud, how many people staring for how many minutes would it take to open a nice sunny hole in the rainclouds over a ballpark so the game could go on? Inquiring minds want to know these things!

JudyB

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 12:06 PM

So, how goes it with the cloud dissolving, folks? I was busy for a bit there and couldn't get on Mudcat.

I think you're onto something there, Carol. :-) Wolfgang has powers he will not even admit to himself, cos he is one powerful guy with a strong, strong mind!

Bee-Dub...I can make water run downhill! You betcha. Come on over sometime and I show you if you pay me a small stipend. I can also make the wind blow, which is very handy when sailing radio control boats, and I can make tape sticky too. I can stick my tongue way out, though not as far out as Gene Simmons. What a guy, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 12:08 PM

Yeah, LH. I'd like to see him prove that he didn't dissolve that cloud.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 12:12 PM

No chance. But he will deny. His peace of mind depends on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 04:01 PM

John O'Lennaine, I operate on the same principle. Just perhaps underneath those pairs of underpants was just what you need. *G* I don't expect that everything will always be convenient.

Day before yesterday I was out traipsing around by bus. In Juneau if you are 65, you can acquire a bus pass that allows you to travel free. So that is what I used.

I went to a pawnshop - which I mentioned on another thread, in connection with a guitar- then when I got back on another bus I couldn't find my pass. I decided that when I had taken off my jacket on the first bus it had fallen out of my pocket.

Paid my fare and went home, leaving the matter up to the fates - and to the first busdriver.

That night I got a phone call from the secretary of the local office of Alaska State Parks, for whom I work in this house museum, saying that she had happened to go into a shop and there on the counter was my bus pass. They had found it on the sidewalk and brought it inside. They had no idea who it belonged to- my picture is on it- but of course the secretary knew. She was amazed that I had lost it just hours earlier. She delivered it to me yesterday morning.

I love serendipty- and count on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 04:13 PM

That's just the good lord looking after the good.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 04:17 PM

Any day now the World Association of Free-Ranging Clouds is going to bring a suit against cloud-dissolvers for billions in damages. Wait and see.

This is why I have given up the practice. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 04:22 PM

SPCC (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Clouds)?

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 04:22 PM

Practice? I thought you were a pro? You said you would charge a fee to make water flow downhill, no? Oh... you had a Practise that you gave up. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 04:33 PM

Not so good, gnu... I could tell you things. *G*

"Practice" vs. "Practise"- both of you are Canadian so why the discrepancy? In the US we only practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 04:36 PM

I am still doing the water flowing downhill thing, gnu, and yes, I do charge, but my fee is very reasonable.

I never went pro with the cloud dissolving thing, but I used to do it back in the 70's and early 80's. For free. It was more like a hobby than anything else, I guess.

Ever see the "singing mice" act on Monty Python's? Now there was a pro in action, baby!

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 05:02 PM

Ebbie... you Yanks practice and practise but make no nevermind to the difference. "C" is to repeat something with the objective of becoming more adept. "S" is a profession. I have hockey practice on the weekends. During the week, I work at my engineering practise.

LH. Come to Moncton and visit Magnetic Hill, where your car rolls uphill and the water in the ditch runs uphill... your natural optical delusion... sir, you must remain in your vehicle... sir, please get back in your vehicle... sir, other people are waiting... sir, you must get back in your vehicle... sir...

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 06:10 PM

gnu, that's my point. In the US if someone used 'practise', people would think it was a typo.

Magnetic Hill? In Oregon there is a place called 'Gold Hill' which seems to have the same properties. A ball rolls uphill, a broom stands while leaning uphill, you feel like the floor is far away.

That's when I was a kid. I have no idea whether the place is still open or if the mystery is intact.

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 07:11 PM

in Australia, the talent of making clouds would be well appreciated, as some farmers haven't had rain for 5 years...

Subject: RE: BS: Dissolving clouds (how not to do a test)
From: HuwG
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:44 AM

At least Wolfgang's acquaintance doesn't resort to tantrums if the teeniest doubt is expressed as to the validity of his experiment of hypothesis.

As a former geologist, I made the mistake once of entering into a debate on sci.geo.geology. I pointed out mildly that a Creationist's argument that a certain geological formation was proof of the Old Testament flood, was incorrect since the "evidence" could support many other interpretations. I was quite startled at the number of poster who pounced on my rejoinder and the venom which which they posted.

The usual Creationist tactics in an argument can be summarised as follows:

1. Scientists postulate that the Earth is round.

2. It can be clearly demonstrated that the Earth is not round. There are hills and valleys, mountains and oceans which mar its perfect sphericity. In any case, scientists themselves admit that the Earth is flattened at the poles and bulged at the equator, by a matter of a few centimeters.

3. Since the Earth is not round, it must be flat.

4. This is absolute proof of the doctrine that the Earth is flat.

5. Scientists, and anybody supporting the fallacious theory that the Earth is not flat, are liars, frauds and charlatans.

6. Since all scientists are liars, frauds and charlatans, anything they put forward which contradicts anything we believe in, is necessarily a falsehood.


The Creationists are not the only ones to use such tactics on arguments. There are some "expanding Earth" theorists, who maintain that the Earth was once a ball only a third its present size with all the continents present but not the oceans. (This theory requires adjustment to the theories of Conservation of Matter, or a change in the gravitational constant or speed of light over time, but any attempt to point this out results in a flood of abuse.) And one poster convinced that bits and pieces he has found in an abandoned mine in Pennsylvania proves that man is as old as coal. (He does not explain where man has been in all the intervening geological ages.)


I have long since given up entering such arguments.